Comments for james-mcwilliams.comhttp://james-mcwilliams.com
Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:30:39 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1Comment on Niman’s Naturalistic Fallacy by Mountainhttp://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-211416
MountainMon, 30 Mar 2015 05:30:39 +0000http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-211416http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/552/need-to-know-basis?act=1http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/552/need-to-know-basis?act=1
]]>Comment on Chipotle’s Pork Ploy by Alan Braveshttp://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5803#comment-210700
Alan BravesThu, 26 Mar 2015 11:41:16 +0000http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5803#comment-210700Really good site, thank you so much for your time in writing this post.Really good site, thank you so much for your time in writing this post.
]]>Comment on Temple Grandin’s Reason for Eating Animals?: “I get lightheaded . . . if I go on a vegan diet.” by D. millshttp://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=1340#comment-210587
D. millsWed, 25 Mar 2015 20:53:43 +0000http://eatingplantsdotorg.wordpress.com/?p=809#comment-210587First of all, the author of the article is way over/simplifying her reason for the sake of shedding a negative light on her.
Second, I am a vegan, for ethical reasons, who is very happy that Ms. Grandin eats meat! Why? Because no one does or would have listened to "the hippy freaks" on the issue of humane farming and rendering standards. As the majority of the earth's population has been and will continue to be carnivore, at least there is someone, respected in the meat business, who can make a difference in the lives and deaths of the food animals.
Additionally, as I do animal rescue of family pets, even I benefit from the meat trade by buying cat and dog food for my animals. Food that would not exist without the meat industry. And, to the person who said "let your dogs be vegetarians and your cats eat gophers and mice, you clearly know nothing about the health and welfare of family pets (nor the lack of availability of such in the suburbs). Too, I suppose that the death of rodents is somehow less important and don't deed we've protection from the food chain? But, more to my point, to deny cats and dogs meat-based products would be to corrupt their system and watch their health and life span quickly degenerate as they starve to death of essential nutrients.
Few people's hands are entirely clean of the meat trade, whether it's down pillows, leather products, pet food or human food, so at least Temple and people like her can make the process as humane and pain-free as is possible.First of all, the author of the article is way over/simplifying her reason for the sake of shedding a negative light on her.

Second, I am a vegan, for ethical reasons, who is very happy that Ms. Grandin eats meat! Why? Because no one does or would have listened to “the hippy freaks” on the issue of humane farming and rendering standards. As the majority of the earth’s population has been and will continue to be carnivore, at least there is someone, respected in the meat business, who can make a difference in the lives and deaths of the food animals.

Additionally, as I do animal rescue of family pets, even I benefit from the meat trade by buying cat and dog food for my animals. Food that would not exist without the meat industry. And, to the person who said “let your dogs be vegetarians and your cats eat gophers and mice, you clearly know nothing about the health and welfare of family pets (nor the lack of availability of such in the suburbs). Too, I suppose that the death of rodents is somehow less important and don’t deed we’ve protection from the food chain? But, more to my point, to deny cats and dogs meat-based products would be to corrupt their system and watch their health and life span quickly degenerate as they starve to death of essential nutrients.

Few people’s hands are entirely clean of the meat trade, whether it’s down pillows, leather products, pet food or human food, so at least Temple and people like her can make the process as humane and pain-free as is possible.

]]>Comment on Niman’s Naturalistic Fallacy by Scott M. Smithhttp://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-210248
Scott M. SmithTue, 24 Mar 2015 06:55:57 +0000http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-210248Dr. McWilliams has presented a valid and compelling critique of Niman's indefensible arguments justifying the human consumption of animals. Cows, the living source of the beef Niman wants to defend the use of, are what are to be defended. They are to be let alone to live out their individual lives until the species becomes extinct. This is what is moral, or in the domain of morality. Humans have no right to use animals, certainly no right to raise them for food, research, fur, entertainment, etc. The imagined right is invented, by humans, and it is fallacious. Niman's ranching heritage has nothing to do with natural functioning systems because agriculture is not a part of nature, and the "endless cycle of regeneration" she extols will come to a catastrophic end because of such unnatural activities. Humans have always eaten animals, she points out. So what? Have humans thus always been moral? And did they become moral when they realized eating beef is not immoral? Maybe we were meant to be immoral, because some charlatan is claiming that some things just aren't subject to moral scrutiny. How convenient. Niman is part of a desperate attempt of an industry to label itself as green, natural, sustainable, etc. It is nothing but marketing hype; the belief that it is an improvement for the earth is utterly delusional.Dr. McWilliams has presented a valid and compelling critique of Niman’s indefensible arguments justifying the human consumption of animals. Cows, the living source of the beef Niman wants to defend the use of, are what are to be defended. They are to be let alone to live out their individual lives until the species becomes extinct. This is what is moral, or in the domain of morality. Humans have no right to use animals, certainly no right to raise them for food, research, fur, entertainment, etc. The imagined right is invented, by humans, and it is fallacious. Niman’s ranching heritage has nothing to do with natural functioning systems because agriculture is not a part of nature, and the “endless cycle of regeneration” she extols will come to a catastrophic end because of such unnatural activities. Humans have always eaten animals, she points out. So what? Have humans thus always been moral? And did they become moral when they realized eating beef is not immoral? Maybe we were meant to be immoral, because some charlatan is claiming that some things just aren’t subject to moral scrutiny. How convenient. Niman is part of a desperate attempt of an industry to label itself as green, natural, sustainable, etc. It is nothing but marketing hype; the belief that it is an improvement for the earth is utterly delusional.
]]>Comment on Niman’s Naturalistic Fallacy by Mountainhttp://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-210245
MountainTue, 24 Mar 2015 06:49:50 +0000http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-210245You claimed the IJoB refuted the Teague article, and it does nothing of the sort. It doesn't even claim to do so. It criticizes using the Teague article to support holistic management, a criticism which is itself weak. It claims that the Teague study, and others like it, only tested light and moderate grazing, not the heavy grazing it claims that holistic management requires. Of course, flexibility is a key element of holistic management, and it does not invariably call for heavy grazing. It calls for adjusting the duration and intensity of grazing according to the condition of the land and the ecosystem.You claimed the IJoB refuted the Teague article, and it does nothing of the sort. It doesn’t even claim to do so. It criticizes using the Teague article to support holistic management, a criticism which is itself weak. It claims that the Teague study, and others like it, only tested light and moderate grazing, not the heavy grazing it claims that holistic management requires. Of course, flexibility is a key element of holistic management, and it does not invariably call for heavy grazing. It calls for adjusting the duration and intensity of grazing according to the condition of the land and the ecosystem.
]]>Comment on Niman’s Naturalistic Fallacy by Mountainhttp://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-210240
MountainTue, 24 Mar 2015 06:31:15 +0000http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-210240English, Marc Bedner... do you speak it?!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPpdSzyDtL0English, Marc Bedner… do you speak it?!

]]>Comment on Niman’s Naturalistic Fallacy by Marc Bednerhttp://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-210214
Marc BednerTue, 24 Mar 2015 04:59:24 +0000http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-210214In the reference on Holistic Management I cited above, Carter et.al. conclude: "Studies supporting HM have generally come from the Savory Institute or anecdotal accounts of HM practitioners. Leading range scientists have refuted the system and indicated that its adoption by land management agencies is based on these anecdotes and unproven principles rather than scientific evidence." I regard this as a refutation of the alleged science of Holistic Managment.
In case you missed their mention of the Texas A&M study by Teague et. al. you cited above, Carter et.al. reference it as footnote 107:
"Even though the ecosystems of the Great Plains states evolved with the pressure of bison, Holechek et al. [83] and Briske et al. [103] found that HM did not differ from traditional, season-long grazing for most dependent variables compared. Studies commonly held up as supporting HM [104–108] used HM paddocks that were grazed with light to moderate grazing, not the heavy grazing that Savory recommends. Further, long-term range studies have shown that it is reductions in stocking rate that lead to increased forage production and improvements in range condition, not grazing system [33, 109, 110]."In the reference on Holistic Management I cited above, Carter et.al. conclude: “Studies supporting HM have generally come from the Savory Institute or anecdotal accounts of HM practitioners. Leading range scientists have refuted the system and indicated that its adoption by land management agencies is based on these anecdotes and unproven principles rather than scientific evidence.” I regard this as a refutation of the alleged science of Holistic Managment.

In case you missed their mention of the Texas A&M study by Teague et. al. you cited above, Carter et.al. reference it as footnote 107:
“Even though the ecosystems of the Great Plains states evolved with the pressure of bison, Holechek et al. [83] and Briske et al. [103] found that HM did not differ from traditional, season-long grazing for most dependent variables compared. Studies commonly held up as supporting HM [104–108] used HM paddocks that were grazed with light to moderate grazing, not the heavy grazing that Savory recommends. Further, long-term range studies have shown that it is reductions in stocking rate that lead to increased forage production and improvements in range condition, not grazing system [33, 109, 110].”

]]>Comment on A Nine Billion Straw Revolution by Jimmy Videlehttp://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5281#comment-210077
Jimmy VideleMon, 23 Mar 2015 11:53:34 +0000http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5281#comment-210077Hello James,
It has been a long time since I posted. Good to be back. I am sure everyone is probably tired of this issue, but it comes back up, because well it came back up.
I am an organic farmer(which means no gmo seeds)-turned veganic farmer (which means the use of no animal products to produce my veggies and fruits+ no gmo seeds). Saturday the 21st I was at anti-specieist vigil with another veganic farmer friend and your name came up as being a proponent of gmo's. We both find this discouraging.
Whether Monsanto or an environmentally sensitive company, gmo's cause serious risks to farmers for the ability to save their own seed (in corn's case), since the pollen would cross-contaminate. With all the money that bioengineering spends to create a gmo seed, less money would be needed to create a variety of open-pollinated seeds in the fields around the world, encompassing all regions that would be genetically better and here is why:
Each year a farmer saves seed, that seed has data stored in its nucleus of the growing conditions of where it grew. Weather-drought or too moist, pest pressure, fungal pressures, weed pressures. Those crops each year, by saving those seeds, would have internal knowledge and each year could become stronger, more vigorous and healthier. Before modern agriculture, and scientifically developing hybrids (circa 1920??)and now biotech seeds, this is how it was done since the dawn of agriculture maybe for 100,000 years in some parts of the world.
The problem with science is that humans are trying to predict nature (we are not very good at this), where it is the purpose of the seed to do this, as it is necessary for its survival; for a seed wants to grow, produce a flower and produce more seed.
Soy being round-up ready, and spraying glyphosphate, is causing glyphosphate resistant weeds, thus making companies create stonger formulations of weed killer to modify the seeds with. This is a problem. Again humans trying to outsmart nature, doesn't work.
Again, if we took all the money out of bio-engineering and created localized rotational open-pollinated seed farms. We could create seeds that are adapting to the fast pace change of our 2015 planet.
I am not a scientist and maybe all the world's health organizations have stated that there is nothing dangerous with GMO's, but I also agree with someone else that posted, that there may not be enough evidence yet to show that they are dangerous. Remember at one time, health organizations were saying smoking was good for you (1940), and there are some still saying that drinking milk and eating red meat is good for your health as well.
We can feed 9 billion people, with an open-pollinated system. Up until 1900 (1.5 billion people) we were doing just fine.
I am interested in your thoughts,
Thanks,
Jimmy VideleHello James,

It has been a long time since I posted. Good to be back. I am sure everyone is probably tired of this issue, but it comes back up, because well it came back up.
I am an organic farmer(which means no gmo seeds)-turned veganic farmer (which means the use of no animal products to produce my veggies and fruits+ no gmo seeds). Saturday the 21st I was at anti-specieist vigil with another veganic farmer friend and your name came up as being a proponent of gmo’s. We both find this discouraging.
Whether Monsanto or an environmentally sensitive company, gmo’s cause serious risks to farmers for the ability to save their own seed (in corn’s case), since the pollen would cross-contaminate. With all the money that bioengineering spends to create a gmo seed, less money would be needed to create a variety of open-pollinated seeds in the fields around the world, encompassing all regions that would be genetically better and here is why:
Each year a farmer saves seed, that seed has data stored in its nucleus of the growing conditions of where it grew. Weather-drought or too moist, pest pressure, fungal pressures, weed pressures. Those crops each year, by saving those seeds, would have internal knowledge and each year could become stronger, more vigorous and healthier. Before modern agriculture, and scientifically developing hybrids (circa 1920??)and now biotech seeds, this is how it was done since the dawn of agriculture maybe for 100,000 years in some parts of the world.
The problem with science is that humans are trying to predict nature (we are not very good at this), where it is the purpose of the seed to do this, as it is necessary for its survival; for a seed wants to grow, produce a flower and produce more seed.
Soy being round-up ready, and spraying glyphosphate, is causing glyphosphate resistant weeds, thus making companies create stonger formulations of weed killer to modify the seeds with. This is a problem. Again humans trying to outsmart nature, doesn’t work.
Again, if we took all the money out of bio-engineering and created localized rotational open-pollinated seed farms. We could create seeds that are adapting to the fast pace change of our 2015 planet.
I am not a scientist and maybe all the world’s health organizations have stated that there is nothing dangerous with GMO’s, but I also agree with someone else that posted, that there may not be enough evidence yet to show that they are dangerous. Remember at one time, health organizations were saying smoking was good for you (1940), and there are some still saying that drinking milk and eating red meat is good for your health as well.
We can feed 9 billion people, with an open-pollinated system. Up until 1900 (1.5 billion people) we were doing just fine.
I am interested in your thoughts,
Thanks,
Jimmy Videle

]]>Comment on Niman’s Naturalistic Fallacy by Mountainhttp://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-209697
MountainSat, 21 Mar 2015 16:47:52 +0000http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-209697As far as I can see, the article you cite doesn't even address, let alone refute, the study I linked to. So, in addition to not being aware of reputable science (peer reviewed and published) in support of holistic management, you are unaware of what "refute" means. And referring to science as "pseudoscience" because it reaches conclusions that differ from yours suggests that you don't understand what that means, either.As far as I can see, the article you cite doesn’t even address, let alone refute, the study I linked to. So, in addition to not being aware of reputable science (peer reviewed and published) in support of holistic management, you are unaware of what “refute” means. And referring to science as “pseudoscience” because it reaches conclusions that differ from yours suggests that you don’t understand what that means, either.
]]>Comment on Niman’s Naturalistic Fallacy by Non-Humanisthttp://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-209191
Non-HumanistThu, 19 Mar 2015 05:45:30 +0000http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=5822#comment-209191So, if the chicken comes before the egg, does the egg follow the chicken across the road? What do your rants and digressions have to do with objective reality?So, if the chicken comes before the egg, does the egg follow the chicken across the road? What do your rants and digressions have to do with objective reality?
]]>